Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
On 15 Jun, 10:24, Peter Brooks <Peter.H.M.Bro...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 14, 10:08 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14 Jun, 10:43, Paul Grieg <pgr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 13, 10:46 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 Jun, 11:14, Paul Grieg <pgr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We may have evolved the neural responses, but why should they give us
(or ever be able to give us) a true picture of noumenal reality..
Rather than expecting to obtain a true picture, I think we must make
do with models which are constantly being refined.
Who gets closer to reality, the neurophysiologist or the great
composer? Or the great novelist or painter?
Modern physics is certainly revealing reality as something stranger
than we ever imagined, or perhaps than we can imagine! Feynman said
that anyone who suggested they understood quantum mechanics did not
understand quantum mechanics. So was he saying that our ultimate
understanding is accepting that reality cannot be understood?
That light can look like a particle or a wave depending on how you
look at it seems to bring understanding to a grinding halt. It's like
seeing that every time you kick the cat a geyser erupts in New
Zealand. You are just left perplexed, or at least I am.
Do you expect to obtain answers from metaphysics rather than from
science?
I'm not sure where the ultimate answers will come from. So I keep my
options open. But don't ask me to provide any. Any answers that can be
expressed in words are limited by our limited powers of expression,
perception, and cognition. I don't hold out much hope of finding
ultimate answers, to do so would be incredible hubris for an ape-man
one up from slime mould.
Magee suggests that, although philosophy can give you a framework, art
goes deeper. Especially music. So I'm most tempted to read novels and
listen to music at the moment. Or watch sport. I watched some of
France v. Holland at football last night. That provided a kind of
answer. I think Schopenhauer's idea that truth lies in suspension of
the will through becoming totally involved in aesthetic experience has
something going for it.
I think there are different types of knowledge. Mary the colour-blind
scientist might have a theoretical understanding of colour vision but
she doesn't know what it's like to see colour. I think Edelman made a
similar distinction in his work on consciousness. He set out to
describe how consciousness arises, but pointed out that 'knowledge by
description' shouldn't be expected to convey the actual experience of
qualia. So I would argue that science and the arts have different
aims....
The distinction is becoming blurred. It isn't inconceivable that, at
some stage, somebody would stimulate Mary's optic nerve or visual
area, to give her the quale, without her actually seeing any colour.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't understand. The quale is usually defined as the subjective
experience, so if she is 'given' the quale by definition she sees the
colour.
Dave
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Science and God
- From: Peter Brooks
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- References:
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Science and God
- From: Paul Grieg
- Re: Science and God
- From: Dave Smith
- Re: Science and God
- From: Peter Brooks
- Re: Science and God
- Prev by Date: Re: Science and God
- Next by Date: Re: Science and God
- Previous by thread: Re: Science and God
- Next by thread: Re: Science and God
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading